<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (8) TMI 417 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206504</link>
    <description>Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked to deny Cenvat credit where the credit was disclosed in monthly returns and there is no suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty. Omission of a separate column describing the service was not treated as suppression, and the dispute was also characterised as one of legal interpretation without mens rea. On that basis, the longer limitation period was held unavailable and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 May 2025 12:37:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179992" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 417 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206504</link>
      <description>Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked to deny Cenvat credit where the credit was disclosed in monthly returns and there is no suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty. Omission of a separate column describing the service was not treated as suppression, and the dispute was also characterised as one of legal interpretation without mens rea. On that basis, the longer limitation period was held unavailable and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206504</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>